Saturday, April 30, 2016

Still trying to wrap my brain around the controversy at UC Davis involving our Chancellor (the head of the University) Linda Katehi (see some of these news stories if you are not aware of what is going on). In some sense I could just watch this all from the sidelines and see what happens. But that is not in my nature. And, over the last month I have gotten a near endless stream of comments and suggestions (some in private, some in public) about the topic. Some say I need to be more vocal in condemning Chancellor Katehi (e.g., a student in my lab told me the other day that they have talked to faculty who are wondering why I am being so hesitant to condemn Chancellor Katehi). Other people (many) say any negative posts about Katehi are damaging UC Davis. Still others say and and all actions of Katehi must be considered in the context of overwhelming sexism against female leaders. And so on. In total I have probably gotten dozens of private comments and even more public comments about the case with suggestions for what I should be doing here.

For those who know me or know about me, I assume you know I am not exactly shy about expressing my opinions on topics like behavior of academics or academic institutions. For example, just after joining UC Davis I wrote a post that was shared widely, condemning a UC Davis Vice Provost over her misuse of her position in support of Closed Access publishing: Vice Provost of U. C. Davis on the wrong side of Open Access.

I give out all sorts of snarky awards on my blog to friends, colleagues, and other folds in the world for doing things I think are inappropriate (e.g., see this STAT story). Sometimes I go overboard in this, but certainly I am not hesitant at expressing thoughts when I think there has been something untoward going on. I try as much as possible to turn my microscope on myself and UC Davis too. For example, see this post from a few weeks ago: UC Davis Storer Lecture series - since 1963 87% of speakers are male.

Again, I know I overdo this sometimes but I am certainly not hesitant to make my feelings know.

But the case of Chancellor Katehi leaves me on the fence and with my fingers unclear what to type somewhat. And so I thought I would try to write up what my thoughts are here, even if they are muddled. I wonder what other people think of the situation and would love feedback (as always) on this post.

So - what is so complex here? What am I trying to wrap my brain around? I think my challenge here comes down to the following: I don't know whether some of the responses (including mine) to Chancellor Katehi's actions are tinged with bias, especially sexism.Or, in other words, are the actions and inactions of Chancellor Katehi "firing offenses" or have they been overblown by biased and sexist points of view.

And honestly, I do not know exactly how to figure this out. On the one hand, I accept that there are massive amounts of sexism in society and certainly in regard to how we judge women in power. On the other hand, I think the actions and inactions of Chancellor Katehi and her administration have been serious (in a bad way). I note - one thing I have done to try and better understand my own feelings and actions in this saga is to compile all my posts and communications as best I can and go through them.

This has helped me sort out my thoughts and also helped show me at least that I was certainly not going easy on the UC Davis administration over these cases. I also re-examined my posts about the Pepper Spray incident and aftermath from 2011 which has many parallels to the current situation and also involved Chancellor Katehi. See here for those: posts about the UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident and Aftermath.

Below is a discussion based in part on going through the news stories and posts of others and posts of mine.

I also included in that discussion some possible conflicts of interest of my own that might be clouding my judgment. Those are relevant to this post too and I encourage people to read them. Anyway, this post was written at the beginning of the latest controversy when all that had been disclosed was her acceptance of a set of outside Board positions that were controversial. I had written many mini posts and Tweets about the situation such as those below:

This is why I no longer use textbooks for courses. UC Davis chancellor received $420,000 on book publisher’s board https://t.co/q1evG9aTcG

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

The current Chair of the UC Davis Division of the Academic Senate forwarded an email to UC Davis faculty today. This email included a letter that had been send from from Linda Bisson (past Chair of the UC Davis Division of the Academic Senate) and Rachael E. Goodhue (Chair Elect of UC Davis Division of the Academic Senate) to the President of the University of California Janet Napolitano. The letter's overall message is concern about possible sexism in how the Chancellor of UC Davis is being treated in regard to recent events at UC Davis.

I note - I have received many (over a dozen) private messages also expressing concern that some of the reaction to Chancellor Katehi's activities may be sexist. Mind you - most of these people are not defending the activities of the Chancellor but are concerned about the responses to her activities. I think it is important for these expressions to be more widely viewed and thus I asked Linda Bisson if I could post it here and she said yes.

We want to express grave concern over a pattern of negativism in the press and social media regarding women Chancellors and senior administrative leaders. There are strong parallels between the singularly intensive criticism of our Chancellor Linda Katehi and that previously of Chancellors Fox (UCSD) and Denton (UCSC), and of UC Vice President Greenwood. Yet, the activities that are being criticized clearly fall within the standards of UCwide practice. This pattern is exemplified by a 2006 LA Times article that criticized compensation practices for senior UC executives: those singled out for criticism for “extravagant pay practices, perks and privilege for top executives” are all women (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/16/local/me-cap16). The intensity of the criticism at the time ended in tragedy for Chancellor Denton. Chancellor Fox’s term was equally framed as fraught with turmoil, turmoil apparently not experienced by her male colleagues who were facing identical issues due to budget cuts and lack of diversity and inclusion. In an article in the San Diego Union Tribune written on Chancellor Fox’s decision to step down (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2011/jul/05/fox- leaving-ucsd/?#article-copy), she is described in terms steeped in implicit gender bias such as the quote ascribed to former President Atkinson: “She handled that as well as she could have handled it” – not as well as anyone could have handled it or as well as it could have been handled.

Women in leadership positions are often the victims of intense implicit bias and, as a consequence, of the phenomenon of “single storyism” - the reduction of their actions to a simple narrative that appeals to the biases of a broad section of society, in this case implicit gender bias and women being incompetent for their position. Whatever they say or do in response is twisted to fit the “single story.” We think the LA Times article listed above illustrates perfectly the problem of the single story experienced by senior women administrators at UC. If the LA Times story were rewritten today, Chancellor Katehi’s name is likely the only one that would be added to the list.

All of UC is richer because of the participation of women and underrepresented groups at all levels. We know you and your leadership team share this belief. We are concerned that UCOP does not recognize that senior administrators who are identified with an underrepresented identity vital to our diversity are subject to vilification in the press simply because of that identity. We are also concerned, as recent press regarding our Chancellor Katehi demonstrates, that Chancellors and other senior administrators are not well-equipped to deal with single storyism, nor is there the recognition that others, such as UCOP, must step in to address the criticism as well.

The absence of factual information on UC policies and practices with respect to external compensation for all senior administrators has led to speculative and negative public debate regarding a single senior woman, when the practice of external involvement is widespread. We would like to request clear articulation from UCOP of both the formal policies and the informal practices as they pertain to executive compensation (e.g., have senior managers been encouraged to participate in activities outside UC). We note that legislators are calling for the same review. UCOP's understanding of the broader issues involved is essential to informing these external discussions. The need for UCOP to take action is urgent.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

I wrote this blog post a while ago but never published it partly out of fear for upsetting some of my colleagues. I try to be brave about such things, but I guess I just did not quite get up the poxy. Well, today something came up that stimulated me to write the post.

I got an email announcement for a talk that seems potentially quite interesting. The problem is not the talk. The problem is with the endowed Lectureship that this talk is connected to. So here is the post I have worked on on and off over the last year or more.
UC Davis has an endowed lecture series- the Storer Lectureship in the Life Sciences. It has been running since the 1960s and is a relatively big deal on campus here. The speakers come in, usually give one or two talks (one for the public and one for researchers). They usually have a big dinner (I have gone to a few of these) and the speakers get a decent honorarium (a few thousand dollars) and some sort of gift.

Most years I have been here, I have received a request from the organizers for suggested speakers and every once in a while I have made suggestions, some of which have even led to invitations. Recently, I had suggested a famous colleague who is also a UC Davis alum. Alas, she could not come. The organizers asked if I had any other suggestions and I sent them a list of a few candidates who are both very good, well known and do something related to microbes. The organizers really liked one of the suggestions and asked if I would be willing to invite this person.

So I started drafting a letter. And as part of drafting a letter I wanted to give examples of past speakers to show how great a set of speakers we had for this series. So I Googled "Storer" and
UC Davis" or something like that and got to the page:

And that is when I got a bit heartbroken. The speakers have been, well, very male. I note I spent a while looking at descriptions of each speaker that I did not know to try and determine their gender, looking at their web sites if available, or how they were described (e.g., what pronouns were used). I am pretty confident in the assignments though I realize this is an error prone approach. Here is the full list as far as I have put together with the males labelled in yellow and females in green.

Oct 5-16, 1963

Ernest W. Caspari

University of Rochester

Oct 17-31, 1966

Vincent G. Derhicr

Univesity of Pennsylvania

May 7-20, 1967

Ernst Mayr

Harvard University

Nov 3-15, 1968

Elizabeth C. Crosby

Univesity of Michigan

Jan 3-15, 1969

W.D. Billings

Duke University

Apr 13-23, 1969

Frank Fenner

Australian National University,

Apr 5-19, 1970

A. Frey-Wyssling

Eidgenossiche Tcchnische Hochschule

Nov 11-23, 1970

Carl L. Hubbs

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Feb 1-12, 1971

H.L. KornBerg

University of Leicester, England

Nov 22-Dec 3, 1971

Hilary Koprowski

University of Pennsylvania

Jan 17-28, 1972

George Beadle

University of Chicago

Jan 17-28, 1972

Muriel Beadle

University of Chicago

May 1-12, 1972

Sterling Hendricks

Agriculture Research Service, U.S.D.A

Oct 16-27, 1972

George Gaylord Simpson

The Simroe Foundation

Feb 23-Mar 9, 1973

Sir Alan S. Parkes

The Galton Foundation

Apr 9-20, 1973

Peter R. Marler

The Rockefeller University

May 7-18, 1973

George C. Cotzias, M.D.

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Nov 6-13, 1973

Eugene E. Odum

University of Georgia

Nov 12-16, 1973

Peter Alexander

Royal Marsden Cancer Hospital

Mar 4-15, 1974

Davis A. Hamburg, MD.

Stanford University School of Medicine

Apr 1-15, 1974

Kent V. Flannery

University of Michigan

Nov 4-15, 1974

Garrett Hardin

University of California, Santa Barbara

Mar 30-Apr 9, 1975

Kenneth J. Carpenter

University of Cambridge

Apr 20-May 2, 1975

Murray S. Blum

University of Georgia

Oct 20-31, 1975

Bert W. O'Malley, M.D.

Baylor College of Medicine,

Apr 12-23, 1976

Sydney Brenner

Division of Cell Biology of the Medical Research Council
Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, England

May 17-28, 1976

Peter S. Carlson

Michigan State University,

Nov 22-Dec 3, 1976

Roger Y. Stanier

Pasteur Institute,

Jan 24-Feb 4, 1977

Peter Albersheim

University of Colorado

Feb 22-Mar 4, 1977

*Jere Mead, M.D.
Cecil K. and Philip Drinker

Harvard University

Apr 11-12, 1977

S. J. Singer

University of California, San Diego

Nov 20-30, 1977

James D. Ebert

Marine Biological Laboratory

Feb 8-15, 1978

Sir Kenneth Blaxtcr

Rowen Research Institute

Apr 5-12, 1978

Eric H. Davidson

California Institute of Technology

Oct 9-20, 1978

Jutgen Aschoff

Max-Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology

Feb 20-22, 1979

*Burt L. Vallee, Paul C. Cabot

Harvard Medical School

Apr 24-26, 1979

Carl R. Woese

University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign

Nov 5-16, 1979

Daphne J. Osborne

Oxford University

Februarv 4-15, 1980

John F. Eisenberg

Smithsonian Institution.

Apr 16-18, 1980

George E. Palade, M.D.

Yale Medical School

May 5-16, 1980

Jerre Levy

University of Chicago

Oct 27-30, 1980

Colin Blakemore

Oxford University

Jan 21-27, 1980

Pierre Dejours

CNRS

Feb 26-Mar 5, 1981

Richard Alexander

University of Michigan

Oct 20-27, 1981

Alfred F. Harper

University of Wisconsin Madison

May 11-19, 1982

Glenn W. Burton

USDA-SEA

Oct 11-18, 1982

Richard F. Leakey

National Museums of Kenya

Jan 6-11, 1983

Eric R. Kandel, M.D.

Columbia University,

Oct 12-18, 1983

Donald S. Farner

University of Washington

Feb 13-15, 1984

Daniel Branton

Harvard University

Apr 24-26, 1984

J. Michael Bishop

University of California, San Francisco

Dec 3-6, 1984

Maurice Fried

National Research Council

Apr 3-8, 1985

John Krebs

Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology

May 8-14, 1985

Geoffrey M. Ole Maloiy

University of Nairobi

Oct 8-10, 1985

Michael P. Hassell

Imperial College, London

Apr 21-24, 1986

John Maynard Smith

University of Sussex.

Dec 1-4, 1986

Aldo Carl Leopold

Boyce Thompson Institute

Mar 2A, 1987

Gerald Edelman

The Rockefeller University

Nov 10-12, 1987

Jean-Claude Chcrrnann

Pasteur Institute, Paris France

Jan 15-20, 1988

Jean-Pierre Changeux

Pasteur Institute, Paris France

Apr 11-15, 1988

John I. Harpcr

University College of North Wales

Oct 17-21, 1988

Rudiger Wehner

University of Zurich

Oct 23-26, 1989

John C. Torrey

Harvard University

Feb 26-Mar 2, 1990

Heinz Saedler

Max-Planck-Institute

Nov 5-7, 1990

Francis Crick

The Salk Institute

Jan 28-31, 1991

Thomas A. McMahon

Harvard University

May 28-30, 1991

Lynn Margulis

University of Massachusetts

Nov 18-21, 1991

Richard C. Lewontin

Harvard University

Feb 4-6, 1992

Philip Leder

Harvard Medical School

Apr 13-16, 1992

Patrick Bateson

University of Cambridge

Nov 16-19, 1992

Melvin I. Simon

California Institute of Technology

Feb 1-5, 1993

Anne McLaren

Wellcome/CRC Institute

Apr 13-16, 1993

Judah Folkman

Harvard Medical School

Jan 24 -27, 1994

Philippa Marrack

National Jewish Center

Feb 28-Mar 3, 1994

Stephen O'Brien

National Cancer Institute

Apr 18-21, 1994

Roy M. Anderson

University of Oxford

Oct 31-Nov 2, 1994

Michael J. Berridge

The Babraham Institute

Feb 6-10, 1995

Hal Hatch

CSIRO Division of Plant Industry

May 1-5, 1995

Elaine Fuchs

The University of Chicago

Oct 16-19, 1995

Peter Ellison

Harvard University

Mar 4-8, 1996

Gottfried Schatz

University of Basel, Switzerland

Apr 8-10, 1996

Daniel Hillel

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Feb 3-6, 1997

Peter R. Grant

Princeton University

Apr 14-17, 1997

William J. Lennarz

State University of New York

May 5-7, 1997

Carolyn W. Slayman

Yale University School of Medicine

Apr 20-22, 1998

Floyd Bloom

The Scripps Research 1nstitute

May 18-20, 1998

Ian Wilmut

Roslin Institute

Jan 11-13, 1999

Leroy E. Hood

University of Washington

Apr 26-28, 1999

Patricia Goldman-Rakic

Yale University School of Medicine

Jan 30-31, 2001

Charles Arntzen

Arizona State University

University of Oxford

Mar 4-6, 2002

Jan H. Hoeijmakcrs

Erasmus University

Apr 11-12, 2002

Fred H. Gage

The Salk Institute

May 6-7, 2002

Phillip A. Sharp

Center for Cancer Research, MIT

Jan 13-15, 2003

George M. Martin, M.D.

University of Washington

Mar 10-11, 2003

Kim A. Nasmyth

Vienna Biocenter

Apr 28-29, 2003

Tim Flannery

Director of the South Australian Museum

Dec 1-2, 2003

William Greenough

University of Illinois

Feb 18-19, 2004

Bruce Ames

Children's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute

Nov 29-30, 2004

Hans Herren

International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology

Apr 26-27, 2005

H. Robert Horvitz

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

May 9-10, 2005

Steven Chu

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Jan 24-25, 2006

Cynthia Kenyon

University of California, San Francisco

Mar 14-15, 2006

Thomas D. Pollard

Yale University

Oct 23-24, 2006

Mimi Koehl

University of California, Berkeley

Dec 4-5, 2006

Simon A. Levin

Princeton University

Apr 5-6, 2007

Sir Peter Crane, FRS

University of Chicago

Apr 23-24, 2007

Stephen Quake

Stanford University

May 14-15, 2007

Pasko Rakic

Yale University

Mar 23-24, 2009

Sean Carroll

University of Wisconsin

Apr 20-21, 2009

H. Allen Orr

University of Rochester

May 19-20, 2009

John Doebley

University of Wisconsin

Mar 11-12, 2010

Elliot Meyerowitz

California Institute of Technology

May 17-18, 2010

Robert Langer

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

May 11-12, 2011

Nina Federoff

Pennsylvania State University

Jan 11-12, 2012

Jane Lubchenco

NOAA

Apr 24-25, 2012

Ilkka Hanski

University of Helsinki

May 30-31, 2012

Loren Rieseberg

University of British Columbia

Oct 2-3, 2012

Ed Delong

MIT

Nov 15, 2012

Jordi Bascompte

Estación Biológica de Doñana

Nov 19, 2012

Simon Boulton

London Research Institute

Jan 16, 2013

Ary Hoffman

University of Melbourne

Jan 31, 2013

Jonathan Losos

Harvard

Mar 18, 2013

Gloria Coruzzi

NYU

Apr 10-11 2013

Peter Agre

Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute

May 6, 2013

Richard Wrangham

Harvard

May 16, 2013

Sue Carter

RTI International

May 28, 2013

Larry Gold

CU Boulder

June 4, 2013

Eric Schadt

Mount Sinai

June 05, 2013

Nancy Moran

Yale

Oct 28-29, 2013

Walter Bodmer

University of Oxford

Dec 4-5, 2013

Ronald Kaback

UCLA

Feb 24, 2014

Patricia Wright

Stony Brook

Mar 5-6, 2014

Steve Carpenter

University of Wisconsin

Apr 9-10, 2014

Jerry Coyne

University of Chicago

May 20-21, 2014

May Berenbaum

University of Illinois

May 28-29, 2014

Joel Cohen

Rockefeller University

Oct 28-29, 2014

Charles Rice

The Rockefeller University

Nov 19-20, 2014

Rolf Zinkernagel

University of Zurich

Apr 15-16, 2015

Tim Clutton Block

University of Cambridge

Oct 7-8, 2015

Richard Lenski

Michigan State

April 22, 2016

Steve Nowicki

Duke University

The total numbers come to 19 females out of 142 speakers or ~13% female and 87% male. Ugh.

And the person I had suggested to invite was male. So I wrote back to the organizers and I wrote:

From: Jonathan Eisen

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:34 AM

To: XXXCc: XXX

Subject: Abyssmal gender ratio of speakers in the Storer Lectureship series

XXX and XXXX

With sincere apologies but ...

In preparing a letter of invitation for XXX I decided to include some examples of previous Storer Lecturers. And therein lies the problem On the web sitehttp://www.dbs.ucdavis.edu/seminars_and_events/storer_lecture_list.htmlfrom my count, there are 121 past speakers listed. Of these, 15 appear to be female (from my estimate). That comes to 12%. That is embarassaingly low. I hope my calculations here are wrong.

Can you tell me if the Storer Lectureship has any policies regarding diversity of speakers? If yes, can you provide me with those details.

If no, I recommend you implement one as soon as possible. Either way, I refuse to have my name affiliated with this series, and will not invite anyone to talk in it, without further information and without some serious attempt to figure out how to do a better job representing the diversity of biologists who could give such talks.

Jonathan

They wrote back with a very detailed response and were very supportive of the concept of increasing diversity of speakers. And they explained some of the efforts they had made in this regard. And they really seem to be trying in some ways. But in the end, their main justification for the lack of diversity was that they were trying to invite already recognized, in essence famous, biologists. People who had won a Nobel or were in the National Academy of Sciences or were HHMI investigators. And this pool, that they had chosen, was skewed in gender balance.

So I wrote back to them June 18:

AllThanks very much for the response. I understand you have some constraints and greatly appreciate that you are committed to trying to improve the diversity of speakers. However, the end result is truly not acceptible in my mind and therefore I believe more needs to be done, urgently, to improve the situation.What are some possible ways to improve the situation?Well, the number one recommendation I would make would be to not constrain the pool to honorific groups that themselves have severe skews. No we cannot solve those skews and there are many causes for them. But I believe it is a major mistake to use the diversity of those groups (NAS, Nobel, HHMI) as a target. Either invite people to represent diversity well even from a constrained pool, or, open up to a broader pool (there are plenty of incredible scientists who have not gotten HHMI, NAS, or Nobels).In addition to opening up the pool and not aiming at such a low bar, there are many things one can do to improve the diversity of speakers. I have written about this extensively as have many others. I can point the committee to some of these articles if interested.In the end, whatever the reasons are, the Storer series has ended up with extremely biased gender ratio of speakers. I think it is up to the committee to fix this with a combination of actions. But the first thing I would recommend is to not use the diversity of a set of pools you have chosen as an excuse. We can and should do better and if the pools are the reason, the pools from which you sample need to be changed. Jonathan

They wrote back, saying they were really committed to achieving better gender balance in the future writing "we are totally committed to the same goals as you in terms of gender balance now and in the future." And they also wrote that they expected "the final lineup to reflect at least 30 percent or more female" as long as one additional woman (the person I had originally recommended) would come (though I had told them she said she could not). And then they asked if I would reconsider inviting the man who I had been about to invite that had started this whole discussion.

So I wrote back again July 14:

Thanks again for the response. And though I do not want to continue beating a dead horse, I am not convinced we are doing enough in this area. For example, what explains the "at least 30 percent" and how close to 30% will that be. This is important as, for example, the National Science Foundation will not support their people attending meetings if female speakers are at < 33%. I think 30% is, to be honest, just not acceptable in biology. So beofre contributing any more to this series I need to know exactly what is meant by "we are totally committed to the same goals as you in terms of gender balance now and in the future."For example, here are some questions I would like to know the answers to:

Are you committed to achieving gender balance in the speaker series or just saying you are being more even than before?

Are you committed to researching and using diverse options to ensure diversity of speakers beyond just focusing on who is invited?

Are you interested in understanding why the series has been so undiverse in the past and addressing this directly or just moving forward?

Are you willing to address the lack of diversity in the past publicly and also discuss efforts to improve the diversity?

I would very much like to know more detail about how serious you are to having a diverse series and what you plan to do to achieve this.

With apologies, but in regard to inviting XXX or XXX. I am sorry but given the past record of this series, which as I said is among the worst I have seen anywhere, I am just not willing to be involved in any way until I see a stronger and more public committment to diversity.

I am happy to help with the series and to help improve the diversity of speakers. But this should be done openly and publicly and forcefully. And without evidence of this, I am unable and unwilling to be involved.

And, well, I have not heard from them again. So, I am writing this. For many reasons. But a key one is, I think we need to be more public about such issues. And we just need to fix things that are broken.

So today I decided to make the post live. I wish I had done this earlier.

So - I saw multiple posts by colleagues on Facebook and Twitter about gender skew in the newly elected members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. So I decided to take a look at the list. And it is indeed really skewed. Here is my analysis of gender ratio for mathematical and physical sciences and biological sciences.

Field

Male

Female

Math and Physical Sciences Totals

32

10

Math

5

1

Physics

6

1

Chemistry

7

1

Astronomy

3

4

Engineering

5

1

CS

5

2

Intersection

1

0

Biology Totals

31

8

Biochemistry

4

2

Cell and Development

7

1

Neuroscience

6

2

Ecovo

7

1

Medical

5

1

Intersection

2

1

More detail below:

CLASS I — Mathematical and Physical Sciences (41)

FOREIGN HONORARY MEMBERS (4)

SECTION 1 — Mathematics (6)

Pavel Etingof

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Leslie Greengard

New York University/Simons Foundation

Janos Kollar

Princeton University

Bryna R. Kra

Northwestern University

Andrei Okounkov

Columbia University

Vladimir Rokhlin

Yale University

SECTION 2 — Physics (7)

Barbara V. Jacak

University of California, Berkeley

Christopher Jarzynski

University of Maryland

Hirosi Ooguri

California Institute of Technology

Roberto D. Peccei

University of California, Los Angeles

Robert J. Schoelkopf

Yale University

Steven R. White

University of California, Irvine

Foreign Honorary Member — Physics

Thibault Damour

Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques

SECTION 3 — Chemistry (8)

Donald Hilvert

Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

Jeffery W. Kelly

Scripps Research Institute

Scott J. Miller

Yale University

Melanie S. Sanford

University of Michigan

Isiah M. Warner

Louisiana State University

Michael R. Wasielewski

Northwestern University

Foreign Honorary Members — Chemistry (2)

Hans-Joachim Freund

Fritz-Haber-Institut der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

R. Benny Gerber

Hebrew University of Jerusalem/University of California, Irvine

SECTION 4 — Astronomy and Earth Sciences (7)

Andreas J. Albrecht

University of California, Davis

Joshua A. Frieman

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory/University of Chicago

Jacqueline Hewitt

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Chryssa Kouveliotou

George Washington University

Terry A. Plank

Columbia University

Lisa Tauxe

University of California, San Diego

Foreign Honorary Member — Astronomy and Earth Sciences

Thomas F. Stocker

University of Bern

SECTION 5 — Engineering Sciences and Technologies (6)

Donna Gail Blackmond

Scripps Research Institute

Gerald G. Fuller

Stanford University

Steve Granick

Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan, Republic of Korea

Donald E. Ingber

Harvard University/ Boston Children's Hospital

Robert B. Phillips

California Institute of Technology

Peter W. Voorhees

Northwestern University

SECTION 6 — Computer Sciences (6)

Jeffrey A. Dean

Google

Sanjay Ghemawat

Google Incorporated

Anna R. Karlin

University of Washington

Tom M. Mitchell

Carnegie Mellon University

Tal D. Rabin

IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Scott J. Shenker

University of California, Berkeley

CLASS I INTERSECTION CANDIDATES (1)

Timothy P. Lodge

University of Minnesota

CLASS II — Biological Sciences (38)

FOREIGN HONORARY MEMBERS (6)

SECTION 1 — Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology (6)

Richard H. Ebright

Rutgers University

Lila M. Gierasch

University of Massachusetts

Robert M. Glaeser

University of California, Berkeley/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory